Santa Clara’s Name, Image and Likeness

In Dec. 2005, the University of Southern California’s (USC) star running back, Reggie Bush, took the stage in New York City to accept his Heisman Trophy Award, given to the most outstanding player in college football. Bush would go on to lead his team to the national championship game just weeks later and become immortalized as a legend of the sport. However, a 2010 investigation by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) found that Bush and his family had received impermissible benefits during his playing years, which led to his trophy being rescinded among many other major consequences for Bush and the Trojans.

For decades, the NCAA’s restriction on financial compensation for athletes has been a topic of controversy. College athletics–specifically football and basketball–have moved further away from the amateur principles the NCAA promotes.

However, on July 1, 2021, the NCAA finally permitted student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness (NIL). The landmark NCAA v. Alston case was the penultimate cause of change–it was ruled that the NCAA’s student-athlete compensation rules violated antitrust law–specifically the Sherman Act–by limiting competition for these benefits. The Supreme Court eventually verified this ruling, adding that the NCAA’s rules were overly restrictive and prevented schools from providing student-athletes with reasonable compensation. The Alston decision marked a massive shift in the legal landscape, opening up a new chapter of college athletics and raising a crucial question– will NIL be a good thing for college sports?

Diego Acevedo

Prior to the recent changes, college athletes were prohibited from making money through endorsements, sponsorships, and various business opportunities, while their universities and the NCAA reaped extreme financial rewards from their performances. This contentious issue began to cause controversy in the 2010s, and the NCAA finally succumbed to the pressure and departed from its long-held doctrine. Now, it’s all changed.

The introduction of NIL ordinances has altered the landscape of college athletics. Aside from the financial opportunities now available to athletes–which was the intent of NIL legislation–universities and teams are now finding loopholes in regulations to lure prospective athletes to their programs. The balance of power in college athletics–football and basketball in particular–is changing, giving schools with more financial resources and a bigger base a competitive edge and appeal to recruits.

Essentially, NIL has created an unregulated monetization of college sports, and universities have begun using it as a tool to better themselves. They, too, want to have success on and off the field, and that begins with recruiting the best players. Because of this, NIL has turned into a means to attract recruits to attend a specific school, even though the rules prohibit a pay-for-play system. Many universities have set up booster organizations or funding mechanisms dedicated to addressing athlete compensation. Santa Clara’s own Mission NIL Collective is a third-party network that works with student-athletes to create opportunities with entities like local businesses.

However, not to be lost in all of this confusion is why NIL exists–to benefit the student-athlete. Athletes at Santa Clara and universities around the country put countless hours into their sport, making many sacrifices that regular students do not have to. For Division I athletes especially, their sport is nearly a full-time job. While they can’t be paid a salary, they deserve to reap the financial rewards for their efforts, whether through endorsement deals or other ways. It is clear that NIL needs to add to the ground rules created two years ago, but for the sake of the student-athlete, legislators, universities and coaches must proceed with caution in this area where much is still unknown.